People v. Seekins

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Seekins

925 N.W.2d 825

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 25, 2019

DocketSC: 155016; COA: 333491

StatusPublished

This text of 925 N.W.2d 825 (People v. Seekins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Seekins, 925 N.W.2d 825 (Mich. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

By order of May 1, 2018, the defendant's appellate counsel was directed to file a supplemental brief. On order of the Court, the brief having been received, the application for leave to appeal the November 9, *8262016 order of the Court of Appeals is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of the defendant's June 17, 2016 application for leave to appeal under the standard applicable to direct appeals. Appellate counsel admits that she did not meet with the defendant until two days after the deadline for filing a delayed application for leave to appeal. Accordingly, the defendant was deprived of his direct appeal as a result of constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega , 528 U.S. 470, 477, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000) ; Peguero v. United States , 526 U.S. 23, 28, 119 S.Ct. 961, 143 L.Ed.2d 18 (1999).

We do not retain jurisdiction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By order of May 1, 2018, the defendant's appellate counsel was directed to file a supplemental brief. On order of the Court, the brief having been received, the application for leave to appeal the November 9, *8262016 order of the Court of Appeals is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of the defendant's June 17, 2016 application for leave to appeal under the standard applicable to direct appeals. Appellate counsel admits that she did not meet with the defendant until two days after the deadline for filing a delayed application for leave to appeal. Accordingly, the defendant was deprived of his direct appeal as a result of constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega , 528 U.S. 470, 477, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000) ; Peguero v. United States , 526 U.S. 23, 28, 119 S.Ct. 961, 143 L.Ed.2d 18 (1999).

We do not retain jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

925 N.W.2d 825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-seekins-mich-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack